New Army recruitment campaign

No, it’s a very superficial summary of the challenges of marketing to Gen Z. You can’t expect approaches that worked 30 years ago to work today. There’s a wealth of research about changing generational decision making habits, most of which suggests that there is a paradigm shift going on as the first digitally native generation enters the workplace.
Things haven't been working for the last 30 years, possibly even before that.
The Army have increased the potential recruiting pool by well over 100%, (More female roles, BAME, openly gay) It has recruited approx 10k of foreign born personnel (not including Ghurkas), its made the testing easier (no need for PFT passes for the first 6 months) and the numbers its needs to recruits are a lot lower than they needed 30 years ago when the army was bigger, yet it all about "gen Z".
Lets just forget the shits stats for the last 30 years and just say its because the current generation are different.

The only major difference today's soldiers have is that they cant be lied to, like they were in past because they have the internet. Remember you thinking that 38 days leave was so fantastic? How long through your career (and afterwards) did you tell you soldiers how much better of they were?
 
30 years ago retention was that bad that we had to conduct a round of redundancies. And then it was still that bad that we were brown lettering people. What percentage deviation from what was required equals "shit"?
A few years ago the Army made 20k of people redundant, it didn't really help recruiting or retention stats.
 
Things haven't been working for the last 30 years, possibly even before that.
The Army have increased the potential recruiting pool by well over 100%, (More female roles, BAME, openly gay) It has recruited approx 10k of foreign born personnel (not including Ghurkas), its made the testing easier (no need for PFT passes for the first 6 months) and the numbers its needs to recruits are a lot lower than they needed 30 years ago when the army was bigger, yet it all about "gen Z".
Lets just forget the shits stats for the last 30 years and just say its because the current generation are different.

The only major difference today's soldiers have is that they cant be lied to, like they were in past because they have the internet. Remember you thinking that 38 days leave was so fantastic? How long through your career (and afterwards) did you tell you soldiers how much better of they were?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting it is all about Gen Z. I’m simply stating that marketing anything to Gen Z is immensely challenging. You’ve hit on the reason why; truth. Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as social proof. People trusted authority and people in authority. Now, they look to social media for proof and “truth”. It is very different.

Next, widening eligibility does not necessarily mean that the recruiting pool has widened. As a simple example, women have been able to join the Sappers as soliders for a decade or more, but there are vanishingly few who have because very few meet the physical requirements. Also, a wider pool doesn’t necessarily make it easier; 30 years ago, the Army had a target rich recruiting environment in the service schools. Now, they have to reach far wider to create the same audience.

BTW I’ve never told a soldier that they were better off serving. On occasion, the opposite. Whilst serving, I encouraged a few to leave for better opportunities and afterwards I actively sought to recruit from the Army. That doesn’t change my view that there’s little wrong with the basic package.
 
To be clear, I’m not suggesting it is all about Gen Z. I’m simply stating that marketing anything to Gen Z is immensely challenging. You’ve hit on the reason why; truth. Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as social proof. People trusted authority and people in authority. Now, they look to social media for proof and “truth”. It is very different.

Next, widening eligibility does not necessarily mean that the recruiting pool has widened. As a simple example, women have been able to join the Sappers as soliders for a decade or more, but there are vanishingly few who have because very few meet the physical requirements. Also, a wider pool doesn’t necessarily make it easier; 30 years ago, the Army had a target rich recruiting environment in the service schools. Now, they have to reach far wider to create the same audience.

BTW I’ve never told a soldier that they were better off serving. On occasion, the opposite. Whilst serving, I encouraged a few to leave for better opportunities and afterwards I actively sought to recruit from the Army. That doesn’t change my view that there’s little wrong with the basic package.

If only the officers told the truth eh? Values and standards must just pass them by.

There is a simple solution if the physical requirement are to hard, you just have an overhaul of the fitness standards but claim its got **** all to do with females.

You certainly thought 38 days leave was great because you said so on here. That truth thing we spoke about earlier?
 
What are you on about here?
Bob thought 38 days was part of a great package (and for some reason the free uniform). I pointed out that civvies get a minimum of 28 and that normally soldiers will lose more than the extra ten on weekend duties and exercises.
But he, like other officers will continue to say how much better off soldiers are.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
Does the Army really have 800 in the Corps of Music?

How has that not been battered down too zero? How come we have corps of music and unit bands as well?
 
To be clear, I’m not suggesting it is all about Gen Z. I’m simply stating that marketing anything to Gen Z is immensely challenging. You’ve hit on the reason why; truth. Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as social proof. People trusted authority and people in authority. Now, they look to social media for proof and “truth”. It is very different.

Next, widening eligibility does not necessarily mean that the recruiting pool has widened. As a simple example, women have been able to join the Sappers as soliders for a decade or more, but there are vanishingly few who have because very few meet the physical requirements. Also, a wider pool doesn’t necessarily make it easier; 30 years ago, the Army had a target rich recruiting environment in the service schools. Now, they have to reach far wider to create the same audience.

BTW I’ve never told a soldier that they were better off serving. On occasion, the opposite. Whilst serving, I encouraged a few to leave for better opportunities and afterwards I actively sought to recruit from the Army. That doesn’t change my view that there’s little wrong with the basic package.
Agree with you entirely, Bob. Under the circumstances the Army's got an attractive enough package and the ads are as good as they could be.

The idea that the recruiting pool has doubled by including the "51%" rather than marginalising them just doesn't hold up - the pool has only increased by the number who are physically up to the required standard, and even with the reduced standards far fewer women are than men.

The biggest problem, as we both agree, is the almost total lack of purpose. What's it for? Not some airy-fairy "defence of the realm", but what's it actually meant and intended to do?

With the exception of very limited numbers of SF and highly specialised tps, the vast majority are just "there", with no objective, no purpose and no aim. That doesn't encourage recruiting or retention.
 
Agree with you entirely, Bob. Under the circumstances the Army's got an attractive enough package and the ads are as good as they could be.

The idea that the recruiting pool has doubled by including the "51%" rather than marginalising them just doesn't hold up - the pool has only increased by the number who are physically up to the required standard, and even with the reduced standards far fewer women are than men.

The biggest problem, as we both agree, is the almost total lack of purpose. What's it for? Not some airy-fairy "defence of the realm", but what's it actually meant and intended to do?

With the exception of very limited numbers of SF and highly specialised tps, the vast majority are just "there", with no objective, no purpose and no aim. That doesn't encourage recruiting or retention.
I’m beginning to think the marketing campaign is excellent. Really well integrated and cohesive with messaging that pushes buttons with the target audience, which is not you and I! The social media feeds are improving rapidly too. There are plenty of big businesses that don’t do it as well.

The issue of purpose IMHO hits retention far more than recruiting. It’s not going to get easier to retain people as Gen Z fills the junior levels.

I read a piece in an in-flight magazine about reverse mentoring this morning. Basically suggesting that the traditional model of a “senior” mentoring a “junior” is dead and there is a significant trend towards junior people mentoring their seniors as technology accelerates. It’s an extension of getting the kids to set up the remote. The example used was a major bank getting its youngest staff members to mentor the Board on their social media. The kind of approach that taps right into Gen Z behaviours.
 
Bob thought 38 days was part of a great package (and for some reason the free uniform). I pointed out that civvies get a minimum of 28 and that normally soldiers will lose more than the extra ten on weekend duties and exercises.
But he, like other officers will continue to say how much better off soldiers are.
For me, 25 working days pa. But one thing you can't do in the civilian professional workplace (I am consultant now) is slope off on a quiet afternoon or give a CO's stand down. Not when 15 mins of every working day has to be billed to a client (and before you ask, I am currently off the clock).

It is one of the few things I really miss for being in the Services is the relatively generous leave and unofficial TOIL and early 'stacks'. I still see that in the civil service when working on a Government client site, but it is very rare in industry and the financial services sector. Late in/early finish without reason? Don't bother coming back - and I saw a senior staff member of a merchant bank (ie Director-level) get sack for doing this once too often.

As an aside, with that bank, a well-known high street name, the Partners, Directors and SVPs are expected to contribute to fund the Christmas parties for their troops which cannot be described in any way as lavish. Black Tie? Attend with your partner with a night in a 5* hotel thrown in? Not these days.
 
To be clear, I’m not suggesting it is all about Gen Z. I’m simply stating that marketing anything to Gen Z is immensely challenging. You’ve hit on the reason why; truth. Thirty years ago, there was no such thing as social proof. People trusted authority and people in authority. Now, they look to social media for proof and “truth”. It is very different.
Early days and need more insiders, but the British Army Pathmotion is one of the initiatives to address the issue.
 
For me, 25 working days pa. But one thing you can't do in the civilian professional workplace (I am consultant now) is slope off on a quiet afternoon or give a CO's stand down. Not when 15 mins of every working day has to be billed to a client (and before you ask, I am currently off the clock).

It is one of the few things I really miss for being in the Services is the relatively generous leave and unofficial TOIL and early 'stacks'. I still see that in the civil service when working on a Government client site, but it is very rare in industry and the financial services sector. Late in/early finish without reason? Don't bother coming back - and I saw a senior staff member of a merchant bank (ie Director-level) get sack for doing this once too often.

As an aside, with that bank, a well-known high street name, the Partners, Directors and SVPs are expected to contribute to fund the Christmas parties for their troops which cannot be described in any way as lavish. Black Tie? Attend with your partner with a night in a 5* hotel thrown in? Not these days.
Civvies normally get 20 days plus 8 days bank holidays.
Squadies get 38 days but generally lose alot more weekends.
I work 37 and half hours a week as a civvie. Overall I work much less hours than I did as soldiers. Yes I did knock of early on a Friday, but I lost the overall time off against time spent on exercises, duty and compulsory fun.
Have you seen the bollocks the Army has to put up with for a troops Christmas lunch? I think it now has to be classed as corporate lunch to get funding. It's pikey as ****.
 
Civvies normally get 20 days plus 8 days bank holidays.
Squadies get 38 days but generally lose alot more weekends.
I work 37 and half hours a week as a civvie. Overall I work much less hours than I did as soldiers. Yes I did knock of early on a Friday, but I lost the overall time off against time spent on exercises, duty and compulsory fun.
Have you seen the bollocks the Army has to put up with for a troops Christmas lunch? I think it now has to be classed as corporate lunch to get funding. It's pikey as ****.
I should add that I get statutory public holidays on top of 25 working days leave. But it is still a lot less that I had in the RAF. But then we didn't work weekends, if at all possible! Our quarterly sector meetings are followed by a 'social' which is mandatory if you want to butt-snorkel your line manager, but you have to contribute £15 for food and drink.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
@RCT(V)

Explain that Dumb?

My Units band are real soldiers that normally do G4 jobs on exercise/deployment. I know multiple other unit bands that provide the pioneering tasks to the unit.

Whats the point of having musician dressed as soldiers when we've got unit bands who are able to be real soldiers and play an instrument?

Especially 800 musicians.
 
I should add that I get statutory public holidays on top of 25 working days leave. But it is still a lot less that I had in the RAF. But then we didn't work weekends, if at all possible! Our quarterly sector meetings are followed by a 'social' which is mandatory if you want to butt-snorkel your line manager, but you have to contribute £15 for food and drink.
It's five days less than the RAF if you get 33 days. Naturally being in the RAF I'm surprised you did 5 days a week never mind a weekend.
15 quid a quarter is a lot less than the compulsory fun soldiers have to pay for
 

Latest Threads

Top